“When interpreting a statute, the court must begin with the text.[e.s.] Allen ex rel. Martin v. LaSalle Bank, NA., 629 F.3d 364, 367 (3d Cir. 2011). “If the statute’s plain language is unambiguous and expresses [Congress’s] intent with sufficient precision, we need not look further.” Psaros v Green Tree, NJ Federal District Court (New Jersey) Case #15-4277 (JLL)(JAD)
Editor’s Note: Another decision that corroborates what I have been saying for years — that excellent actions for damages lie against both the servicers (and Trustees) AND the law firms that represent them.
=================================
WE HAVE REVAMPED OUR SERVICE OFFERINGS TO MEET THE REQUESTS OF LAWYERS AND HOMEOWNERS. This is not an offer for legal representation.
Our services consist mainly of the following:
-
30 minute Consult — expert for lay people, legal for attorneys
-
60 minute Consult — expert for lay people, legal for attorneys
-
Case review and analysis
-
Rescission review and drafting of documents for notice and recording
-
COMBO Title and Securitization Review
-
Expert witness declarations and testimony
-
Consultant to attorneys representing homeowners
-
Books and Manuals authored by Neil Garfield are also available, plus video seminars on DVD.
For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688. You also may fill out our Registration form which, upon submission, will automatically be sent to us. That form can be found at https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1452614114632. By filling out this form you will be allowing us to see your current status. If you call or email us at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com your question or request for service can then be answered more easily.
================================
THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
The purpose of the FDCPA is “to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors, to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent State action to protect consumers against debt collection abuses.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e). When Congress passed the legislation in 1977, it found that “[a]busive debt collection practices contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to the loss of jobs, and invasions of individual privacy.” Id. § 1692(a). “As remedial legislation, the FDCP A must be broadly construed in order
to give full effect to these purposes.” Caprio, 709 F.3d at 148. Accordingly, the Court must “analyze the communication giving rise to the FDCPA claim ‘from the perspective of the least sophisticated debtor.'” Kaymark v. Bank ofAmerica, N.A., 783 F.3d 168, 174 (3d Cir. 2015)…
prevail on an FDCP A claim, a plaintiff must prove that (1) she is a consumer, (2) the defendant is a debt collector, (3) the defendant’s challenged practice involves an attempt to collect a ‘debt’ as the Act defines it, and (4) the defendant has violated a provision of the FDCPA in attempting to collect the debt.” Douglass v. Convergent Outsourcing, 765 F.3d 299, 303 (3d Cir. 201 (citation omitted). Here, Plaintiff has alleged all four elements (Compl. 28, 29, 33, 35), and Stern Lavinthal does not dispute the first three prongs. At issue is the fourth prong: whether Stern Lavinthal violated a provision o f the FDCP A in attempting to collect the debt.
The quoted part of FDCPA: 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2).”
False or misleading representations. A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:
(2) The false representation of —
(A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt; or(B) any services rendered or compensation which may be lawfully received by any debt collector for the collection of a debt.
Filed under: foreclosure |
[…] Foreclosure Mills Liable Under FDCPA […]
thanks Dan Dienert. I run a little blog at wordpress called rogerrinaldi. I try to post current news items there too.
Kalifornia, MN, Shadowcat, UsedKarguy, and Dbelanger…
Thank you for *all* of your comments on all of NG’S articles!
It’s the insight of each of you that draws me to this blog daily.
MARILYN HOUSTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
U.S. BANK HOME MORTGAGE WISCONSIN SERVICING, a wholly owned subsidiary of U.S. BANK, NA, and
GARY HEIDEL, Executive Director of the Michigan State Housing Development Authority, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-2444.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Filed November 20, 2012.
Before: MOORE and COLE, Circuit Judges, and ROSE, District Judge.
Nevertheless, the district court was too quick to grant summary judgment against the entirety of Houston’s RESPA claim. There is little discussion in the court’s orders below of the nature of US Bank’s RESPA violation, or of what damages—outside of foreclosure—may have resulted. Houston also alleges financial and emotional damages arising from the violation, which the district court did not address.[6] She has averred that she suffered “stress, mental anguish, embarrassment, and humiliation,” because of US Bank’s violation, and not merely because of the foreclosure. R. 33-3 (Houston Aff. ¶ 14) (Page ID #544). We conclude that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Houston suffered damages as a result of US Bank’s RESPA violation. Accordingly, we remand for a determination of what damages, if any, can fairly be traced to US Bank’s RESPA violation.
I urge all of you to put a freeze on your credit reports. No one can look you up without you unfreezing it for five days without your permission, not even First American lol
do you all see. the ( IF ) IN THIS STATEMENT.
In connection with the underwritten certificates, the related underwriter has agreed, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the related underwriting agreement, to purchase all of the respective underwritten certificates ( if ) any of those underwritten certificates are purchased. , thereby. The underwriting agreements provide that the obligations of the underwriters to pay for and accept delivery of their respective underwritten certificates are subject to, among other things, the receipt of legal opinions and to the conditions, among others
that no stop order suspending the effectiveness of the depositor’s registration statement shall be in effect, and that no proceedings for that purpose shall be pending before or threatened by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Method of Distribution
In accordance with the terms and conditions of an underwriting agreement dated the date hereof, Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. will serve as the underwriter of the Senior Certificates – other than the Class PO Certificates, Class IO Certificates and a de minimis portion of the Class R Certificates – and has agreed to purchase and the depositor has agreed to sell, the Senior Certificates – other than the Class PO Certificates, Class IO Certificates and a de minimis portion of the Class R Certificates. A de minimis portion of the Class R Certificates will be retained by GMACM and that portion is not offered hereby. The certificates being sold to Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. are referred to as the senior underwritten certificates. It is expected that delivery of the senior underwritten certificates, other than the Class R Certificates, will be made only in book-entry form through the Same Day Funds Settlement System of DTC, and that the delivery of the Class R Certificates will be made at the offices of Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., New York, New York, in each case, on or about the closing date against payment therefor in immediately available funds.
In accordance with the terms and conditions of an underwriting agreement dated the date hereof, Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. will serve as the underwriter of the Class M-1, Class M-2 and Class M-3 Certificates and has agreed to purchase and the depositor has agreed to sell, the Class M-1, Class M-2 and Class M-3 Certificates. The certificates being sold to Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. are referred to as the subordinate underwritten certificates. It is expected that delivery of the subordinate underwritten certificates will be made only in book entry form through the Same Day Funds Settlement System of DTC on or about the closing date against payment therefor in immediately available funds.
S-94
Table of Contents
The senior underwritten certificates and the subordinate underwritten certificates are collectively referred to in this prospectus supplement as the underwritten certificates. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. are collectively referred to in this prospectus supplement as the underwriters.
In connection with the underwritten certificates, the related underwriter has agreed, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the related underwriting agreement, to purchase all of the respective underwritten certificates if any of those underwritten certificates are purchased thereby. The underwriting agreements provide that the obligations of the underwriters to pay for and accept delivery of their respective underwritten certificates are subject to, among other things, the receipt of legal opinions and to the conditions, among others, that no stop order suspending the effectiveness of the depositor’s registration statement shall be in effect, and that no proceedings for that purpose shall be pending before or threatened by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The distribution of the underwritten certificates by the underwriters may be effected from time to time in one or more negotiated transactions, or otherwise, at varying prices to be determined at the time of sale, from time to time in one or more negotiated transactions, or otherwise, at varying prices to be determined at the time of sale. Proceeds to the depositor from the sale of the senior underwritten certificates, before deducting expenses payable by the depositor, will be approximately 99.08% of the aggregate Certificate Principal Balance of the senior underwritten certificates plus accrued interest thereon from the cut off date. Proceeds to the depositor from the sale of the subordinate underwritten certificates, before deducting expenses payable by the depositor, will be approximately 95.93% of the Certificate Principal Balance of the subordinate underwritten certificates plus accrued interest thereon from the cut off date.
The underwriters may effect these transactions by selling their underwritten certificates to or through dealers, and those dealers may receive compensation in the form of underwriting discounts, concessions or commissions from the underwriter for whom they act as agent. In connection with the sale of the underwritten certificates, the underwriters may be deemed to have received compensation from the depositor in the form of underwriting compensation. The underwriters and any other dealers that participate with the underwriters in the distribution of the underwritten certificates, may be deemed to be underwriters and any profit on the resale of the underwritten certificates positioned by them may be deemed to be underwriting discounts and commissions under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
Each underwriting agreement provides that the depositor will indemnify the respective underwriters, and that under limited circumstances the respective underwriter will indemnify the depositor against some liabilities under the Securities Act, or contribute to payments required to be made in respect thereof.
It is anticipated that an affiliate of the depositor will purchase the Class PO Certificates and Class IO Certificates on the closing date. The affiliate may from time to time directly or through an underwriter or agent in one or more negotiated transactions, or otherwise, at varying prices to be determined at the time of sale. However, there is currently no underwriting arrangement in effect for these certificates. Proceeds to the depositor from the sale of the Class PO Certificates and Class IO Certificates will equal the purchase price paid by their purchaser, net of any expenses payable by the depositor and any compensation payable to any underwriter or agent.
There is currently no secondary market for the offered certificates. The underwriter intends to make a secondary market in the offered certificates to be purchased by it, but is not obligated to do so. There can be no assurance that a secondary market for the offered certificates will develop or, if it does develop, that it will continue. The offered certificates will not be listed on any securities exchange.
S-95
http://www.mbia.com/investor/publications/2014-09-29_Amended_Complaint.pdf
Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission nor any state securities commission has approved or disapproved of the offered certificates or determined that this prospectus supplement or the prospectus is accurate or complete. Any representation to the contrary is a criminal offense.
The Attorney General of the State of New York has not passed on or endorsed the merits of this offering. Any representation to the contrary is unlawful.
Ocwen commits fraud, and no one is charged with crimes as usual. Ocwen does not admit to any wrongdoing also as usual.
Reblogged this on California Freelance Paralegal and commented:
Great blog post by Neil Garfield discussing how a recent court decision stated that foreclosure mills can be held liable under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
The Biggest Land Heist in History!
Lost & Unclaimed assets Escheat
Seeking Affidavits of of person most knowledgeable ,,,,
Answers with “Want of Knowledge Affidavits”.
No Sir, being asset stripped was not my Intention , my intention was to grant a lien via a mortgage . The Misrepresented Mortgage shows otherwise.
Seised of Estate
The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that Ocwen Financial Corp. has agreed to settle charges that it misstated financial results by using a flawed, undisclosed methodology to value complex mortgage assets.
an other words , fraud. ( flawed, undisclosed methodology. )
http://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2016-13.html
greg, I have known that for some time now after talking with a reg, there. am also will be getting a sec reg. to testify to that point. that they are just as a state registry of deeds , they just make sure all I are dotted and t’s cross. that all . and any one can put anything on sec. but in no way shape or form does it mean they did what they said they were doing. its not there job as I was told to make sure they did what they filed. ok judge. now what you got.
Thursday 28 January 2016
>Anyone?
Subpoena ducas tecum?
SEEKING TRANSCRIPTS for officers/PMKs (Person Most Knowledgeable) on the issue of the source of the funding at “closings” of the purported base contract; especially where table funding and/or warehouse funding or similar occurred.
Anyone?
@ greg
@David Belanger
If the submissions to the SEC are BLINDLY accepted and recorded as legitimate, in the same fashion as is BLINDLY occurring in each county in every one of the Several States, and the courts are also BLINDLY accepting those recordings pursuant to a presumption of correctness and regularity under the respective Rules of Evidence, then at least one segment of the ATTACK is by raising a REBUTTAL to the ERRONEOUS PRESUMPTION with facts and evidence.
Sorry for the run-on sentence.
MTF (More To Follow)
Lauren….Who is checking the borrowers credit report occasionally ?
First American Title or the likes perhaps?
When you receive your acceleration letter, it states that it is an attempt to collect a debt. I believe the Complaint states the same. Every piece of paper you received that says that needs a response sent certified mail within 30 days that you do not owe the debt.
Get your credit report and see who is on it with regard to your mortgage once it is transferred. Ours has Pennymac Corp and then flipped to Pennymac Loan Services which claims to be a mortgage servicer but is also registered in Florida as a debt collector. BINGO!
Wednesday 27 January 2016
About Yvanova: [From a white paper, “Glaski v. Bank of America, et al (Void Assignments)” if one wants to search and read this review on
Glaski.]
Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage, et al. April 2014
Oh my. I am not sure what fascinates me more about this opinion – the
fact that it drives home the point of how a pro se can hurt all of us by
not understanding the basic rules of civil procedure and law; or that the
Court actually relies on lower federal district court rulings to support its
decision not to follow Glaski. This case is just simply wrong, wrong,
wrong. Not because it is not right in the reasoning, but because now the
Banks will use this in arguing against Glaski.
On page 8, the Court confirms the Glaski court finding that “a borrower may challenge a nonjudicial foreclosure based on allegations that one or more transfers in the chain of title of a trust deed is void. She is correct.” Point 1 of Glaski is once again confirmed.
Point 2 – what makes the assignment “void” is where once again, the Court refuses to follow Glaski – “noncompliance with the terms of a pooling and servicing agreement would render an assignment void”. Citing to three lower federal rulings (so much for stare Decisis!) the Court pointedly follows Jenkins (which never investigated the assignment as void) – and it appears that the borrower failed to allege the assignment was void as a matter of law.

Wednesday 27 January 2016
Glaski is purposefully being given the short shrift by plaintiff-beholding
judges, which is why I suggested being prepared to drive home valid
and existing law, re trusts. The above article’s “argument” to the judge
about having the court reference any ambiguity, for the record, is the
type of argument one should make about void trusts, backed both by
law and case cites.
If one is on a state court, remove the action to a federal venue, and this
is particularly true when arguing rescission. Local courts will screw
defendants to the wall with impunity.
Rescission is a federal issue, anyway, and forcing rescission to be heard
in a federal venue puts Garfield’s playbook in action…forcing the “lender”
to prove it has been financially harmed, having waived the 20 day
window to contest the rescission.
I would not rely on Glaski. It gives fodder to reject based on other court’s
deciding to go with the number of decisions that have wrongfully chosen
to ignore that case.
The Bassman case, in Illinois, ruled against the defendant’s challenge
to the PSA, but I think it was improperly argued, weak arguments making
for bad case precedent. The appellate court did open the door if one
could prove a void circumstance v its decision to make the challenge
only voidable. A missed opportunity.
Again, not easy, but these cases are instructive in how not to argue.
Wells Fargo and HSBC banned from new mortgage servicing business – FT.com
Wells Fargo, the US’s largest mortgage lender, and HSBC have been banned from taking on new mortgage servicing activities after a US regulator found the banks…
ft.com
@ mn
Currently before the Kalifornia Supreme Court and awaiting opinion is the Yvanova matter which addresses the issue of “the securitized trust never [receiving] the note and mortgage as required under trust law” (Delaware or New York, I do not recall at this time?).
A previous case in Kalifornia Appellate Court, Glaski, relied on New York trust law, which Yvanova makes reference(s) to.
Wednesday 27 January 2016
The best, and perhaps only way to attack the PSA is from a void angle,
based on NY trust law, claiming one is not seeking to enforce any of the
controlling PSA contract terms, but that the securitized trust never
transferred the note and mortgage as required under trust law…ie, no
endorsements on the copy of the note submitted in evidence, lacking
true sale endorsements to Depositor, from Depositor to trustee, none of
which appear on the note.
It has been a while since I read a PSA, but as I recall, a trustee cannot
ratify any act not in accord with the PSA contract terms, so any court
stating, actually advocating for the plaintiff trust, that ultra vires acts can
be ratified by the trustee is blowing smoke out of his/her robe. One needs
to be prepared to counter any such court/plaintiff dribble with facts, and
a few case cites in support would be better.
K…I say amen.
@ BLD
Further, not only does the putative REMIC TRUST exist in neither New York nor Delaware, but also investigate the Secretary of State’s records in the situs of the real property, because it appears that as an unincorporated association the REMIC TRUST must also be registered with the state and pay state taxes for engaging in business therein.
Any signature on a PSA was done years ago and are not in existence.
Get busy and help your attorney by contacting the offices of the Secretary of State of Delaware or New York…anything securitized was done under those two ‘states’.
More fraud…as when you contact their offices they will provide a letter of Attestation the trust does not exist. Or type in the name of the trust which should be recorded but does not exist…
As previously hypothesized, at the inception of the base contract (NOTE / DEED OF TRUST) it appears that the CONDUIT ORIGINATOR (LINO) knowingly and intentionally induced the MAKER / BAILOR by means of fraud and deceit to EXECUTE a contract.
That contract created privity with the LINO in some sort of a hybrid SILENT PARTNERSHIP by the unwitting silent partner: MAKER / BAILOR.
Operating under the SILENT PARTNERSHIP base contract, the LINO then pledged the silent partner’s EXECUTED NOTE / DEED OF TRUST to the ACTORS in the sham securitization scheme.
@ David Belanger
Indeed.
None of the securitization scheme’s sub-contract ACTORS you reference could partake in the SHAM without the existence of the base contract in place, notwithstanding the questionable legitimacy.
@ David Belanger
The Pooling & Servicing Agreement (PSA) is a sub-contract resulting from the putative REMIC TRUST which dictates the terms and conditions of securitization scheme as applied to the ACTORS, beginning with the CONDUIT ORIGINATOR (LINO), followed by;
sponsor;
depositor;
underwriter;
trustee;
custodian;
servicer; and etc.
Formulating the right description for the PSA’s place in the structure of the securitization scheme in relation to the homeowner has been a chore, because the courts have generally been following the logical fallacy that a MAKER / BAILOR of a NOTE is not a party to the PSA contract, nor the resulting REMIC TRUST.
Mindful in the RMBS context that there must be many a MAKER / BAILOR, collectively, if they did not EXECUTE a NOTE, then there would exist no foundational instrument to pledge to a putative REMIC TRUST for the ACTORS to sub-contract thereafter.
The question of legitimacy of the base contract (NOTE / DEED of TRUST) aside, if there is no MAKER / BAILOR of a NOTE, then there is no putative REMIC TRUST, nor the resulting sub-contract in the form of a PSA.
THAT IS CONTRACT LAW 101. ALL PARTY TO CONTACT MUST SIGN THE CONTRACT.
SO IF I AM THINKING CORRECTLY. THERE WOULD BE AT LEAST
4 SIGNATURE BLOCKS. ON ALL PSA .
SPONSOR, DEPOSITOR,ISSUER, TRUSTEE
RIGHT?
WE COULD GO FURTHER IN SAYING, UNDERWRITERS, CERTIFICATE HOLDERS, DTCC, DTC, INSURANCE , ETC ETC.
Wednesday 27 January 2016
Cheers David Belanger…
Good point.
mn
ONE thing many of you are forgetting, we all know it is all fake. but lets look at one thing here. as you know banks try to say we are not a party to the PSA. and only a party that has signed the psa is allowed to use that psa.
has anyone come across a psa that has been sign by the trustee, of a trust that is trying to foreclose.
not me. so if the foreclosing party is saying they are a party with the right to foreclose on you , i would see if they sign the pas. only party’s that sign psa can use it. and if the trustee did not sign that psa, and the psa is being used for authority to foreclose on you. just saying.
i have a certified copy of my psa and prospetus from security and exchange. and it is not sign by anyone.
what is statute of limitations for FDCPA?
This is a wonderful article.
I was wondering if you could update your article under the “HOMEOWNERS” tab on your website, “Why You Don’t Owe the Money”?
While I believe most of it is accurate and still applies, some of the numbers and content seem a bit outdated at this time (article date Dec. 8, 2008).
Best Regards,
Jim Bonham
602-565-1456
False claims
Definitions ;
“I” means the Borrower. (Name in All Caps)
“You” means the Lender ( R Bank & Trust)
I and You enter into a consumer agreement?
Who is the Creditor?
“I” and “You” enter into a consumer contract.
“I” bought Homeowners title insurance policy.
“I” purchased Lender Insurance for “You”
WOW! Talk about the Insurance Companies Double Dipping!
Where does this leave KC?
Is KC “I”?
Is KC “You”?
Is KC Creditor ?
We have a pretender lender and a debtor…..
WHO IS THE CREDITOR?
So the Servicers, Lawyers & Trustees representing Whom?
The Party Whom Employ them and they are Beholding too?
Could they Owe that Party Damages for Damaging the Assets?
I’m Insured? Are You Insured?
“I” & “YOU”
How Much does KC owe?
Where did My money Go?
Accounting 101
So I have to add to the article .
You send. QWR or Request Discovery.
You also want an affidavit from “The Flavor of the Month” that testifies to that stuff he represented to be true and our detrimental reliance
On his representations. I Love the Tax, Ins & Abandonment claims!
Their responses are generally the same. … They file a “Want of Knowledge Affidavit ” & Withdrawal running with their Britches All In A Knot!!!
Kennedy, All Costs of the Loan must be disclosed & Certain costs must be represented in the APR and properly disclosed on TILA!
THERE IS VERY LITTLE ROOM FOR ERROR.
Tier 2 …
UKG!! I put them on Notice!
They See Me Now!
That’s How I A Keep them in Line!!!!
Conversion. Upon Death, Sale or Disposal.
Creates a Corporate Tax liability .
WOW. I might call in “this week. I listened two weeks ago. My case is very similar. With ‘Regulation Z” that states in the case of foreclosure if the BROKERAGE FEE is LEFT OUT Of transaction papers the whole loan is null and void. Research? Official Board Interpretation (FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD) there reasoning was that, they were making things easier for the Banks and to eliminate the brokerage fee would just be a violation that warranted nullifying the whole loan. I read it myself. You must read carefully. I don’t have it in front of me now. I will fax or email it to you. God Bless America and you Neil your a true American.
From: Livingliess Weblog To: kennedy_thorne@ymail.com Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 1:16 PM Subject: [New post] Foreclosure Mills Liable Under FDCPA #yiv0026674975 a:hover {color:red;}#yiv0026674975 a {text-decoration:none;color:#0088cc;}#yiv0026674975 a.yiv0026674975primaryactionlink:link, #yiv0026674975 a.yiv0026674975primaryactionlink:visited {background-color:#2585B2;color:#fff;}#yiv0026674975 a.yiv0026674975primaryactionlink:hover, #yiv0026674975 a.yiv0026674975primaryactionlink:active {background-color:#11729E;color:#fff;}#yiv0026674975 WordPress.com | Neil Garfield posted: “”When interpreting a statute, the court must begin with the text.[e.s.] Allen ex rel. Martin v. LaSalle Bank, NA., 629 F.3d 364, 367 (3d Cir. 2011). “If the statute’s plain language is unambiguous and expresses [Congress’s] intent with sufficient precis” | |
I don’t know why “theft by conversion” hasn’t been used as a cause of action AFTER the foreclosure.
Or like when plaintiff lawyers file in the name of a nonexistent entity. Or a rogue servicer stealing Fannie/Freddie assets.
Criminals all, including the judges who allow it.
See Fariasantos v. Rosenberg.
Neil.. When are you going to do an article on Conversion ?
You know how Jan, likes to Whack those Moles!
This Plaintiff also alleged a debt collector under law can not foreclose and estate for the debt of only one tenant.
Wouldn’t it be Grand if that tenant filed BK on his only unsecered debt?
Dam Pride!!! LOL!!!
FDCPA provides a viable business for many attorneys. It is a well-written statute IMHO. The FDCP is regularly violated by so-called debt collectors. One of the debt collectors that I ran into that was supposed to be a law firm as well, Mann & Bracken, is no longer in business due to many violations of the FDCPA as well as two class action suits. Good riddance. BTW, servicers are debt collectors. Look at their correspondence, statements and, possibly, notices re privacy.
Neil..We refer to them as…. “Flavors of the Month.” 😂